Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
EXHIBIT D
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 32 PageID# 3720
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 32 PageID# 3721
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
The Kenrich Group LLC (“Kenrich”) was retained to determine the economic damages incurred
by Dominion as a result of Precision related issues. Precision did not complete its warranty work for slip
repairs in 2013 and 2014, so Dominion hired other contractors to complete Precision’s warranty work.
Precision also failed to acknowledge the over payments by Dominion to Precision for the actual as-built
quantities and resultant associated price that Precision should-have-been paid for 1) Base Lay pipe work
and 2) curlex installation. Further, Dominion completed items of Precision’s scope of work after
Precision failed to do the work.
After reviewing the contemporaneous Project records, including the Contract, invoices, and
correspondence as well as discussing the Project with Dominion personnel, Kenrich determined
Dominion was damaged in the amount of $8,505,425 as summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Dominion’s Damages For TL-590
Description Amount
ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014) $ 7,447,269
McGuireWoods LLP, counsel for Dominion, retained Kenrich to quantify the economic damages
Dominion incurred as a result of Precision related issues.
Kenrich is a national business and litigation consulting firm that provides business and litigation
consulting services to corporations and counsel. Kenrich has more than 75 professionals in ten offices
within the United States. Kenrich professionals include engineers, Certified Public Accountants, Masters
of Business Administration, and others with accounting, economic, and finance experience.
This report was prepared under the direction of Mark Gentry, a Vice President of Kenrich. Prior
to working at Kenrich, Mr. Gentry was a Project Manager with JE Dunn Construction, an Engineering
News Record Top 25 Contractor. In addition, Mr. Gentry previously worked at Navigant Consulting and
Tucker Alan, Inc. preparing construction damage analyses. He has substantial experience in economic
damages analysis consistent with the scope performed on this engagement. Mr. Gentry’s resume and
testimony experience list are included in Attachment A. Mr. Gentry’s hourly billing rate on this
engagement is $325.
4. Various Correspondence;
The opinions and analyses presented in this report are based on currently available information.
If new information becomes available that is relevant to the analyses or opinions, we may supplement this
report. This report is also supplemented by work papers that may be updated prior to trial hearings to
incorporate changed circumstances or additional information that is determined to have a material impact
on our opinions. If this matter proceeds to trial, selected pages of the documents and information relied
upon may be used as exhibits. Additionally, we may prepare graphic or illustrative exhibits based on the
contents of this report, the documents and information considered, and analysis of those documents and
information. Kenrich currently anticipates attending trial to hear (and/or reading testimony transcripts of)
relevant witness testimony that Kenrich may also rely on for our testimony at trial.
Dominion contracted with Precision on January 7, 20111 for the completion of the TL-590 and
TL-492 pipelines and agreed to a ready for service date of August 15, 2012.2 Dominion acknowledged
that Precision achieved the ready for service date in accordance with the requirements of the Contract by
signing Exhibit P-Completion Certificates on September 7, 2012.3 The TL-590 pipeline included
approximately 44 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe to be constructed in Marshall County, West Virginia and
Greene County, Pennsylvania.4
Dominion incurred additional costs for Precision responsible issues and also overpaid for various
items of work. At the request of Dominion’s counsel, Kenrich calculated Dominion’s economic damages
as a result of the Precision responsible issues and the overpayments. Dominion’s economic damages are
summarized in Table 2 below and will be discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs.
Table 2
Dominion’s Damages For TL-590
Description Amount
ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014) $ 7,447,269
1
DOM00051072 – Contract 2010-18: TL-590 & TL-492 70 x5.
2
PP00145979 – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.
3
DOM00004126 – Exhibit P – Completion Certificates.
4
PP00145979 – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.
A. TL-590 ROW Slip Repairs & Restoration Work (2013 & 2014)
A slip occurs when the ground becomes unstable and slides away or down from where it was
originally. A slip is similar to a landslide but on a smaller scale. In 2013 and 2014, multiple slips
occurred on the TL-590 ROW.5 Per discussions with Dominion personnel, Precision was responsible to
restore the ROW, including repairing slips on the ROW, within its two year warranty period.
Precision provided a warranty for its work for two years after the Final Restoration and Project
Completion Date in Contract Article 18.1 as shown below.
Graphic 1
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract – Article 18.16
As Article 18.1 describes, “the Work” should be free from defects, such as a slip. However, in
2013 and 2014, which were within the two year warranty period, multiple slips occurred on the ROW.
Dominion personnel have indicated that Precision buried an excessive depth of wood chips at multiple
locations on the ROW which contributed to the slips. In addition, Dominion personnel have indicated
that professional industry standards require Precision to repair slips within the warranty period.
In 2013, over 30 slips occurred on the TL-590 ROW.7 Dominion notified Precision that the slips
had occurred which required repair as a warranty item.8 Precision refused to come back and complete the
slip repairs, and Dominion then hired other contractors to complete Precision’s warranty work. The 2013
slips were repaired by Price Gregory between September and November of 2013.9 Kenrich analyzed the
Price Gregory invoices and supporting documentation submitted to Dominion and quantified the costs
incurred by Dominion associated with the repair of the slips on TL-590.10 To calculate the economic
damages incurred by Dominion as a result of the slips, Kenrich analyzed the daily reports included in
each Price Gregory invoice. Work activities for labor and equipment costs were classified into the
5
Attachment C – Summary Of Slip Repairs on TL-590.
6
DOM00051121 – Article 18.1: Quality of Services.
7
Attachment C – Summary Of Slip Repairs on TL-590.
8
DOM00007623-DOM00007627 – 2/5/13 Email From B. Moody.
9
DOM00079332-DOM00079336 – Price Gregory Invoice Cover Sheets.
10
DOM00154900-DOM00156779 – Price Gregory Invoices And Supporting Documentation.
following three categories, “slip repair work”, “indirect work”, and “unrelated work”. Price Gregory did
not segregate its material costs with specific work activities like it did for labor and equipment, so
Kenrich allocated the material costs utilizing a proportional percentage of each work category based on
the labor and equipment costs. Once all of the Price Gregory costs had been categorized into the three
categories, slip repair work totaling $3,343,700 indirect work totaling $1,637,450 and unrelated work
totaling $488,533, Kenrich allocated the indirect costs proportionately to slip repair work and unrelated
work. As shown in Table 3 below, Dominion incurred $4,772,375 to repair the 2013 slips.
Table 3
TL-590 2013 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages11
Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,700
Total TL-590 2013 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages $ 4,772,375
In 2014, more slips occurred on TL-590. Over 20 slips were repaired by Ace Pipeline, another
contractor hired by Dominion to complete Precision’s warranty work, between late April and September
of 2014.12 Kenrich analyzed the Ace Pipeline invoices and supporting documentation submitted to
Dominion and quantified the costs incurred by Dominion associated with the repair of the slips on TL-
590. To calculate the economic damages incurred by Dominion as a result of the slips, Kenrich analyzed
the daily reports included in each Ace Pipeline invoice. Work activities that included a slip or slip station
number were classified as “slip repair work” and totaled $708,034. Kenrich also identified indirect work
activities, such as equipment repair and hauling, and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the
indirect work, or $1,115,054, to the slip work. In total Dominion incurred $1,823,088 to repair the slips
in 2014. 13
Ace Pipeline also completed other non-slip restoration work on TL-590 such as re-seeding,
applying lime and mulch as well as removing erosion control devices (“ECD’s”) from the ROW. Per
Dominion personnel, this work was part of Precision’s responsibility to restore the ROW. Similar to the
slip repairs in 2014, Kenrich analyzed the Ace Pipeline invoices and supporting documentation submitted
11
Attachment D – Summary Of 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
12
DOM00108178, DOM00108192, DOM00084983, DOM00085087, DOM00085178, DOM00085263,
DOM00085372, DOM00085480, DOM00070840, and DOM00085611 – Ace Pipeline 2014 Invoices.
13
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
to Dominion and quantified the costs incurred by Dominion associated with re-seeding, applying lime and
mulch as well as removing ECD’s from the ROW.14 To calculate the economic damages incurred by
Dominion as a result of the other non-slip restoration work, Kenrich analyzed the daily reports included in
each Ace Pipeline invoice. Work activities that included re-seeding, applying lime and mulch at non-slip
stations were classified as “re-seeding/fertilizing” and totaled $182,494. Work activities that included
removing ECD’s at non-slip stations were classified as “ECD removal” and totaled $148,334. As
described earlier, Kenrich also identified indirect work activities, such as equipment repair and hauling,
and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the indirect work, or $287,407 to the re-
seeding/fertilizing work and $233,571 to the ECD removal work. In total Dominion incurred $469,901 to
complete re-seeding/fertilizing work and $381,905 for ECD removal work.15
Kenrich also identified work activities completed by Ace Pipeline that were not associated with the
TL-590 slip repairs or other non-slip restoration work. Kenrich classified those work activities, which
totaled $53,304, as “unrelated”. As described earlier, Kenrich also identified indirect work activities,
such as equipment repair and hauling, and allocated a proportional percentage of the cost of the indirect
work, or $83,935 to the unrelated work. In total, Kenrich excluded 2014 Ace Pipeline costs totaling
$137,239 from the Precision responsible economic damages.16
As shown in Table 4 below, Dominion incurred $2,674,894 to repair the slips and complete other
non-slip restoration work in 2014.
Table 4
TL-590 2014 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages17
Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 1,823,088
Re-seeding/Fertilizing 469,901
Total TL-590 2014 ROW Slip Repair & Restoration Damages $ 2,674,894
In total, Dominion incurred $7,447,269 from 2013 to 2014 to repair slips and complete other non-
slip restoration work that should have been completed by Precision within Precision’s warranty period.
14
DOM00108178, DOM00108192, DOM00084983, DOM00085087, DOM00085178, DOM00085263,
DOM00085372, DOM00085480, DOM00070840, and DOM00085611 – Ace Pipeline 2014 Invoices.
15
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
16
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
17
Attachment E – Summary Of 2014 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Related Damages.
Dominion and Precision agreed that after receipt of the as-built drawings, the parties would
reconcile the amount owed to Precision for the Base Lay piping work to the as-built footage calculated at
the conclusion of the Project.18 Dominion and Precision, however, disagreed on what constituted the
Base Lay piping work.
Per the Contract, “Base-Lay Pipe Work shall mean those portions of the work identified as such in
accordance with Exhibit A – Scope of Work: Pipeline Data.”19 Section 2.3 of Exhibit A defines Base Lay
as including, “Unloading, tallying, storing, hauling, and stringing pipe…clearing rights of way…grading
rights of way…excavating and grading ditch…coating pipe…testing the pipeline…all seeding and
restoration…” among other things.20 Attachment 2 to Exhibit A defines that the Base Lay price does not
include road, railroad, wetland, stream and river crossings as shown below in Graphic 2.
Graphic 2
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract – Attachment 2 To Exhibit A21
The road, railroad, wetland, stream and river crossings excluded from the Base Lay unit price pay
items are instead included as Authorized Special Work unit price pay items. The Authorized Special
Work unit prices are established in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A and generally state for road, railroad,
wetland, stream and river crossings that the work includes the installation of the pipe.22 Section 2.4 of
Exhibit A defines Authorized Special Work as including the following items, among others (bold
emphasis added).
18
DOM00054568-DOM00054569 – 10/9/12 Email From M. Pratt.
19
DOM00051083 – Article 1.1: Defined Terms.
20
PP00045573-PP00045575 – Exhibit A Article 2.3: Base-Lay Pipe Work.
21
PP00045332 – Attachment 2 to Exhibit A Article 1.1.
22
PP00045332-PP00045545 – Attachment 2 to Exhibit A.
“2.4.A) Installing casing under highways and railroads in the manner approved by the
highway or railroad authorities, including excavating (consolidated rock removal),
boring, tunneling, sealing, venting, cutting, welding, testing, and performing all other
work necessary to completely install such crossings.”23
“2.4.M) Installing river crossings in the manner and at the locations designated by the
Contract Documents, including the installation of pipe, anodes, weights, clamps, saddles,
valves, reinforcing welds, headers, riprap, the bending, welding, lowering, laying,
coating, wrapping, and shielding of the pipe and coating, the necessary ditching,
dredging, backfilling, channeling, and disposing of excess excavated material, and the
performing of all other work necessary to completely install such river crossings.”24
Kenrich understands the Base Lay work to specifically exclude road, railroad, wetland, stream and
river crossings as stated in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A. In addition, the Authorized Special Work
definitions in Exhibit A and Attachment 2 to Exhibit A include work that would result in a double
payment for certain items if the work was paid as both Authorized Special Work and Base Lay work.
Therefore footages for Authorized Special Work pay items should not also be included in the Base Lay
unit price pay items. 25 Kenrich analyzed the Base Lay footages for TL-590 and determined that
Dominion overpaid for the Base Lay footage by paying both the Authorized Special Work unit price and
the Base Lay unit price for pipeline footage that was installed as Authorized Special Work.
Precision’s Monte Pratt argued in October 2012 that, “During the kick-off meeting in March, it was
stated by Greg, and confirmed by Carole, that the Base Lay footage was paid from end to end, and stream,
wetland, and bored crossings were added on top of that.”26 Dominion personnel disagreed with Monte
Pratt’s statement and did not recall anything of that nature being said in the meeting.27 Further, Article
2.3 of the Contract states the following, “This Contract, together with all attachments and incorporated
references, is the entire agreement between DTI and Contractor with respect to the Work and supersedes
any prior or contemporaneous agreement or understanding between the Parties regarding the subject
matter hereof.”28
23
PP00045576 – Exhibit A Article 2.4 A).
24
PP00045576-PP00045577 – Exhibit A Article 2.4 M).
25
In addition, Attachment 2 to Exhibit A estimated the Base Lay quantity at 222,158 feet or approximately 42.1
miles. Authorized Special Work items A, B, C, E, F, and H were estimated at 6,014 feet or approximately 1.1 miles.
Adding the estimated footages for Base Lay and those Authorized Special Work items together results in
approximately 44 miles as listed in – Exhibit B: Addenda B – 1: Detailed Project Information.
26
DOM00054568-DOM00054569 – 10/9/12 Email From M. Pratt.
27
DOM00050630-DOM00050634 – 10/16/12 Emails From Dominion Personnel.
28
DOM00051088 – Article 2.3: Entirety.
Kenrich calculated the total Base Lay footage by subtracting the footage for Authorized Special
Work pay items related to the installation of pipe from the total as-built pipe footage as shown in Table 5
below.
Table 5
TL-590 Base Lay Footage29
Description Footage
As Built Footage 229,237
Kenrich compared the total Base Lay footage to the quantity that Dominion had paid Precision for
each Base Lay component and determined that the Base Lay components in Table 6 below had been
overpaid. Kenrich then multiplied each Base Lay overage by its respective unit price and applied the
same 1% discount to the total that Precision applied in its billings. Kenrich determined that Dominion
overpaid Precision by $838,058 on TL-590 as shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6
TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment30
29
Attachment F – Summary Of TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment.
30
Attachment F – Summary Of TL-590 Base Lay Overpayment.
During October 2012, Dominion personnel walked the TL-590 ROW to measure and document the
actual quantities of certain work installed as well as to review punchlist items. During that walk,
Dominion personnel found a discrepancy in the amount of curlex, or erosion control fabric, installed as
compared to what Precision had billed for in its invoices to Dominion.31 According to the “Tl-590 Curlex
Location” spreadsheet completed by Dominion personnel, based on its measurement of actual quantities
installed in October 2012, Precision installed 8,339,694 square feet of curlex.32 Precision billed for
10,909,69833 square feet of curlex, however Dominion only paid Precision for 8,627,017 square feet of
curlex.34
Precision argued that the quantities of curlex were only invoiced after the quantities were verified
and signed off on by Dominion personnel.35 However, per discussions with Dominion personnel, the
personnel signing off on Precision’s quantities may have simply counted rolls of curlex on the truck and
not the actual amount of curlex installed on the ROW. Regardless, per the Contract, Dominion had the
right to audit Precision’s curlex quantities as shown in Article 8.3.1 in Graphic 3 below.
Graphic 3
TL-590 And TL-492 Contract36
31
DOM00007475 – 10/16/12 Email From B. Moody.
32
DOM00007476 – TL-590 Curlex final.xlsx.
33
PP00003418-PP00003423 – Progress Billing Invoice 10-137-82 For Week Ending 11/11/12.
34
Attachment G – Summary Of TL-590 Curlex (Erosion Control Fabric) Overpayment.
35
DOM00050628 – 10/16/12 Email From M. Pratt.
36
DOM00051103 – Article 8.3: Right to Audit.
Based on Dominion’s October 2012 measurement of actual quantities installed, Kenrich determined
that Dominion overpaid Precision for curlex in the amount of $172,394 as shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7
TL-590 Curlex Overpayment37
Description Amount
Square Feet Of Curlex Paid By Dominion 8,627,017
Morgan Township provided an estimate for $86,000 to Dominion for the road damages incurred as
a result of Precision’s actions on TL-590.39 Per Addendum 1,Pre-Bid Minutes, “Contractor shall be
responsible for obtaining bonds for all roads and restoring any road damage. Dominion will pay 50% of
all road bonds and damages up to a maximum of $5,000,000.”40 Therefore Precision is responsible for
50% of the Morgan Township road damages, or $43,000.
The TL-590 Project crossed Mrs. Young’s driveway. Mrs. Young’s driveway was originally
supposed to be a bored crossing, however Precision decided to open cut the driveway.41 Per discussion
with Dominion personnel, when making the decision to open cut instead of bore, Precision explicitly
agreed to repave the driveway when the work was completed. However when prompted by Dominion to
complete the repaving, Precision stated that open cutting the driveway resulted in an overall cost savings
to Dominion that Dominion was responsible for repaving the driveway.42 Precision did not complete the
37
Attachment G – Summary Of TL-590 Curlex (Erosion Control Fabric) Overpayment.
38
DOM00003587 – 7/17/13 Email From D.J. Linger.
39
DOM00079393-DOM00079396 – Morgan Township Letter And Corporate Disbursement Request.
40
PP00145998 – Exhibit B: Addenda B-2: Addendum 1: Pre-Bid Minutes.
41
DOM00011266 – 6/12/13 Email From B. Moody.
42
DOM00011266 – 6/13/13 Email From M. Pratt.
work as agreed to and Dominion hired another contractor, Klug Bros, Inc., to repave Mrs. Young’s
driveway.43
Kenrich determined that Precision is responsible for the cost of repaving Mrs. Young’s driveway
because it made the decision to open cut instead of bore the crossing and agreed to repave the driveway
before the work began. Therefore Precision is responsible for the Klug Bros, Inc. invoice of $4,704.44
Dominion is due $47,704 for road and driveway repairs caused by various Precision actions as
shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8
TL-590 Road And Driveway Repair Damages
Description Amount
Morgan Township Road Repairs $ 43,000
43
DOM00090826 – Invoice #5630 From Klug Bros., Inc. Dated 8/19/13.
44
DOM00090826 – Invoice #5630 From Klug Bros., Inc. Dated 8/19/13.
Mark Gentry
Vice President
Mark Gentry is a Vice President in the Minneapolis office of The The Kenrich Group LLC
Kenrich Group LLC (“Kenrich”). Mark specializes in the 10 South Fifth Street
Suite 1020
investigation and resolution of business disputes, primarily Minneapolis, MN 55402
related to the construction industry. He has consulted on a variety Tel: (612) 492-2176
of projects including casinos, schools, military barracks, Fax: (612) 343-0105
refineries, apartments, single-family homes, hotels, distribution E: mgentry@kenrichgroup.com
centers, power plants, sports stadiums, airports, water treatment
Professional History
facilities, highways, light rail lines and tunnels. In addition, Mark
x JE Dunn Construction
has analyzed manufacturing and termination issues for Project Manager (2006-2010)
government contracts. He has lead teams analyzing critical path
method schedules, productivity, cost increases and contract x Navigant Consulting
Managing Consultant (2004-2006)
issues.
x Tucker Alan Inc.
Mark has testified as an expert in arbitration and court Manager (2000-2004)
proceedings as well as presented damage and schedule delay x University of Illinois
analysis during settlement negotiations. He has also consulted Research Assistant (1998-1999)
with, and presented to, companies on scheduling methods and x Ray Black and Sons Construction
procedures, costs tracking and means to track the impact of Laborer (1996-1997)
project issues. x Illinois Army National Guard
Cannon Crew Member,
Prior to working for Kenrich, Mark worked as a Project Manager Communications and Supply
for JE Dunn Construction, an Engineering News Record top 25 Specialist (1993-1999)
contractor. His project management experience at JE Dunn
Education, Certifications & Training
included condominiums, retail facilities, office buildings, parking
x University of Illinois,
lots and casinos. In addition he has provided pre-construction
Urbana/Champaign
services for hotels and recreational facilities. B.S. in Civil Engineering,
Graduated with Honors
Selected Professional Experience x The University of Chicago – Booth
School of Business
Construction Executive Education Finance
Course
Assisting counsel with project issues on one of the first new x Registered Professional Engineer
AP1000 nuclear power plants under construction in the United (PE), Minnesota
States.
x LEED AP
Prepared a detailed cost, productivity and schedule delay analysis x OSHA 10 and 30
of a Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) power generation facility
Professional Associations
for an international design/build firm. The analysis was focused
around an economic force majeure and delays caused by an x National Society of Professional
Engineers
international equipment supplier. Quantity, cost and craft hour
databases were utilized to determine the magnitude of various x Minnesota State Bar Association
impacts to the site productivity at various levels of detail.
Operations logs, Distributed Control System (DCS) data, and
interviews with site personnel were used to determine and
quantify delays during plant startup. The analysis was presented
during a successful mediation.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 17 of 32 PageID# 3735
$WWDFKPHQW$
Mark Gentry
Prepared a delay claim relating to a 750 MW combined cycle natural gas fired plant in Mexico
for a large international construction and engineering company. The schedule analysis focused
on delays during plant startup. Delay issues included plant and turbine trips, corrective work and
export power restrictions. Operations logs and schedules, Primavera schedules, export power
restriction curves, and interviews with key startup and planning personnel were all used to help
support the analysis.
Prepared a detailed productivity analysis related to new light rail transit system for a large
design/build firm. The analysis focused on disruptions during construction of new stations and
bridges and installation of additional track. The analysis was prepared to assist with the
explanation of cost overruns and as support for change orders.
Developed an as-planned v. as-built schedule analysis for a steel fabricator working on a new
major league baseball park. Drawing logs, piece logs and interviews with key project personnel
were utilized to determine the duration and causes of delays.
Supervised and prepared cost and schedule analyses for a chlorination and dechlorination facility.
The facility was built to treat waste water before it was released into the final effluent. The work
for the designer involved the quantification and allocation of over 700 days of delay for each
facility. We also evaluated the contractor's claims totaling over twenty million dollars.
Performed a detailed critical path methodology (CPM) schedule analysis to determine the causes
and duration of delays caused by an international equipment supplier for a global design/build
firm on the construction of a combined cycle power plant. The analysis involved the review of
monthly progress reports, contemporaneous correspondence, and interviews with key project
personnel. A time-impact schedule analysis was developed utilizing Primavera P3 scheduling
software. Work included the preparation of an extensive multimedia presentation presented at
client settlement negotiations.
Reviewed another consultant’s critical path schedule analysis of a steam generator replacement
project. The analysis focused on increased security requirements and the ripple effect early
delays had on the project due to extremely confined spaces. The review focused on proper
methodology, accuracy, and reasonableness.
Authored an expert report related to changes and impacts to an electrical contractor’s work during
the construction of two new Wal-Marts in the Twin Cities. The general contractor had declared
bankruptcy and the electrical contractor was seeking recovery from the surety. Assisted with
successful negotiations of the damages before arbitration began.
Developed claims relating to a 540 MW combined cycle power plant for an international
contractor. The claims were to recover accident related damages due to an equipment collapse
and for damages caused by the contractor’s consortium partner. Performed a detailed critical path
method schedule analysis using Primavera schedules, interviews with site personnel, progress
reports, daily and weekly site reports, and craft hour databases. Work included the preparation of
a mediation presentation.
2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 18 of 32 PageID# 3736
$WWDFKPHQW$
Mark Gentry
Investigated design and construction issues related to the pipe support system for two new
circulating fluidized-bed boiler systems. Reviewed project correspondence, installation
instructions for the pipe supports, specifications, photographs, compliance submittals of the
supports and project drawings. Presented the findings via a written report.
Assisted a large international contractor develop claims related to late and damaged equipment.
Performed a summary level schedule analysis of mechanical erection, assisted with quantification
of productivity related impacts and provided litigation support.
Prepared two change orders for an international contractor related to the remediation of a retired
army chemical warfare manufacturing facility. Preparation of the change orders required a
detailed analysis of equipment, labor and distributable costs.
Assisted a large international contractor dispute a termination for cause related to a contract for
decontamination and decommissioning a nuclear power plant. The analysis included a review of
the contractor's project controls compared to the contractual requirements. Additionally, assisted
counsel to understand the major cost overruns, reasons for the overruns and provided assistance at
a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission trial.
Prepared and presented a delay claim for the signaling contractor on a new light rail construction
project to the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The delay claim analysis focused on the late
delivery of light rail vehicles and the resulting impacts to the signaling contractor.
Assisted a small electrical contractor prepare for a potential claim situation related to the
construction of a 400,000 square foot distribution center. The contractor was experiencing delays
and disruptions caused by out of sequence and late concrete pours. We assisted the contractor
understand his current cost and schedule position and develop monitoring tools so the he could
better understand when the impacts were starting to impact profitability.
Assisted a large general contractor with the calculation of certain claims related to the
construction of a new riverboat casino. The owner of the facility instituted an optional Owner-
Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP). Assisted the contractor with the quantification of the
disputed credit that was due the owner for instituting the OCIP.
Prepared and presented multiple seminars to an international design-build firm regarding claims.
The seminars focused on what individual executives, project managers and cost and schedule
engineers could be doing better in the event claimable situations arise on the project. The
seminars were tailored based on experience with the firm’s internal cost and schedule records.
Government Contracts
Assisted a large aircraft manufacturer in reviewing the opposing side’s workpapers and
performing a rebuttal schedule analysis. The analysis was used to help support the reason for
contract termination, the duration of delays in the manufacturing process, and the forecasted date
of project completion.
3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 19 of 32 PageID# 3737
$WWDFKPHQW$
Mark Gentry
Insurance/Environmental
Assisted in developing models used to allocate damages to various insurance policies and
coverage blocks using a variety of trigger theories and allocation methodologies.
Performed a total cost analysis for an EPA landfill site to aid four large national manufacturing
companies in settlement negotiations.
4
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 20 of 32 PageID# 3738
$WWDFKPHQW$
Mark Gentry
Testimony List
Approximate
Case Name Venue Date
Georgia Power Company’s Seventeenth Georgia Public Service Commission 2017
Semi-Annual Construction Monitoring
Report For Vogtle Units 3 and 4
Docket No. 29849
The Weitz Company, LLC Versus Zitting State of Minnesota, County of 2017
Brothers Construction, Inc., Sam Zitting Hennepin, Fourth Judicial District
and ZB Holding, LC, d/b/a ZB Holdings,
LLC d/b/a ZB Holding Company, LLC
Case No. 27-CV-15-9490
Steven T. Huff Family, LLC Versus The United States District Court, District 2017
Monarch Cement Company and City Court for the Western District of
Wide Construction Products Co. Missouri, Southern Division
Case No. 6:15-CV-03214-BP
USA f/b/o Ash Equipment Co., Inc. d/b/a United States District Court, District 2017
American Hydro Versus Red Wilk Court of South Dakota, Southern
Construction, Inc., Morris, Inc. and Division
United Fire & Casualty Co.
Case No. Civ. 14-4131
Hotel KCI, LLC Versus The Weitz Circuit Court Of Jackson County, 2013
Company, LLC Versus M&M Properties, Missouri
Inc. d/b/a M&M Painting, et al.
Case No. 1016-CV16475
1 of 2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 21 of 32 PageID# 3739
$WWDFKPHQW$
Mark Gentry
Testimony List
Approximate
Case Name Venue Date
The Jamar Company, Inc. Versus American Arbitration Association 2012
Independent School District No. 2142, St.
Louis County, MN
Case No. 65 110 55 12
J.E. Dunn Northcentral, Inc. et al. Versus American Arbitration Association 2008
The Lofts of Stillwater, Inc. et al
Case No. 65 110 J 00028 07
2 of 2
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 22 of 32 PageID# 3740
Page 1 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 23 of 32 PageID# 3741
Page 2 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 24 of 32 PageID# 3742
Page 3 Of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 25 of 32 PageID# 3743
Source:
"Slips Repaired On TL-590" (DOM00088173)
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 26 of 32 PageID# 3744
Description Amount
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,699.68
Indirect Costs 1,428,675.30
Total 2013 TL-590 Slip Repair And Restoration Damages $ 4,772,374.98
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 27 of 32 PageID# 3745
[B = A/Total
[A] Direct Costs] [C] [D = B*C] [E = A+D]
% Of Total Allocated
Description Direct Costs Direct Costs Indirect Work Indirect Work Total
Slip Repair Work $ 3,343,699.68 87.25% $ 1,637,450.20 $ 1,428,675.30 $ 4,772,374.98
Unrelated Work 488,533.44 12.75% 1,637,450.20 208,774.90 697,308.34
Total $ 3,832,233.12 100.00% $ 1,637,450.20 $ 5,469,683.32
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 28 of 32 PageID# 3746
Description Amount
Seeding/Fertilizing 469,900.71
[B = A/Total
[A] Direct Costs] [C] [D = B*C] [E = A+D]
% Of Total Allocated
Description Direct Costs Direct Costs Indirect Work Indirect Work Total
Slip Repair $ 708,033.64 64.83% $ 1,719,966.49 $ 1,115,054.28 $ 1,823,087.92
Seeding/Fertilizing 182,494.31 16.71% 1,719,966.49 287,406.40 469,900.71
ECD Removal 148,334.36 13.58% 1,719,966.49 233,571.45 381,905.81
Unrelated 53,304.30 4.88% 1,719,966.49 83,934.36 137,238.66
Total $ 1,092,166.61 100.00% $ 1,719,966.49 $ 2,812,133.10
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 30 of 32 PageID# 3748
Source:
Invoice And Payment Analysis
General Note:
Base Lay Unit Price Pay Item A.7 is excluded from this analysis because it was not overpaid.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 31 of 32 PageID# 3749
Description Footage
(1)
As-Built Footage 229,237 [A]
(2)
Less: Authorized Special Work Items:
1.2 A) 30" Bore 2,390
1.2 B) 36" Casing 60
1.2 C) 30" Open Cut 1,536
1.2 E) 30" Stream/Wetland CCP 901
1.2 F) Fish Creek (Wet) 241
1.2 H) 30" Stream/Wetland 659
Authorized Special Work Footage 5,787 [B]
Sources:
(1) GAI As-Built drawings dated 11/07/12 (DTI 0002730)
(2) Progress Billing Invoices 10-137-71 (DOM00002566-
DOM00002574). This is the last progress billing invoice Dominion
paid any part of.
Case 3:16-cv-00180-JAG Document 161-4 Filed 01/18/18 Page 32 of 32 PageID# 3750
Description Value
(1) (A)
Cumulative Paid Curlex Quantity Through Invoice 10-137-67 (SF) 8,348,555
(2) (A)
Curlex Quantity Paid For In Invoice 10-137-68 (SF) 278,462
Total Square Feet Of Curlex Paid By Dominion 8,627,017
(B)
Less: Square Feet Of Curlex Installed By Precision (8,339,694)
Square Feet Of Curlex Overpaid By Dominion 287,323
Unit Price Per Square Foot Of Curlex $ 0.60
Total Curlex Overpayment $ 172,393.80
Notes:
(1) Dominion paid in full for Item HH. EC Fabric through Invoice 10-137-67.
(2) Dominion short-paid Invoice 10-137-68 for Item HH. EC Fabric. See Invoice And
Payment Analysis.
Sources:
(A) Invoice And Payment Analysis.
(B) "TL-590 Curlex Location" (DOM00007476)